Brasher v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Brasher v. State

107 So. 230, 21 Ala. App. 255, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 57

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 9, 1926

Docket7 Div. 150.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 107 So. 230 (Brasher v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brasher v. State, 107 So. 230, 21 Ala. App. 255, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 57 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The written charges requested by defendant were all properly refused as stating incorrect propositions of law, or they were covered by the court’s oral charge and the written charges given at the request of defendant. Charges where acquittal is based upon supposition have been condemned. This is true of charge 5. Charge 11 was amply covered by the court’s oral charge. Charge 12 is not applicable except in cases of circumstantial evidence, and not then unless based upon a consideration of all the evidence. Charge 14 is abstract. Charge 15 is invasive of the province of the jury. Charge 17 has recently been condemned, both by this court and the Supreme Court. Charge AA was covered by given charge BB and by the oral charge of the court.

Defendant offered to prove that, when defendant saw the still, he exclaimed, “Look yonder, there is a still!” This was not a part of the res gestae and was a self-serving declaration. The evidence was not admissible. Henderson v. State, 95 So. 57, 19 Ala. App. 80; Connor v. State, 98 So. 482, 19 Ala. App. 444.

That the defendant and his brother failed to get a team from one Gilbert on the morning of their arrest is entirely irrelevant.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SAMFORD, J.

The written charges requested by defendant were all properly refused as stating incorrect propositions of law, or they were covered by the court’s oral charge and the written charges given at the request of defendant. Charges where acquittal is based upon supposition have been condemned. This is true of charge 5. Charge 11 was amply covered by the court’s oral charge. Charge 12 is not applicable except in cases of circumstantial evidence, and not then unless based upon a consideration of all the evidence. Charge 14 is abstract. Charge 15 is invasive of the province of the jury. Charge 17 has recently been condemned, both by this court and the Supreme Court. Charge AA was covered by given charge BB and by the oral charge of the court.

Defendant offered to prove that, when defendant saw the still, he exclaimed, “Look yonder, there is a still!” This was not a part of the res gestae and was a self-serving declaration. The evidence was not admissible. Henderson v. State, 95 So. 57, 19 Ala. App. 80; Connor v. State, 98 So. 482, 19 Ala. App. 444.

That the defendant and his brother failed to get a team from one Gilbert on the morning of their arrest is entirely irrelevant.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 So. 230, 21 Ala. App. 255, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brasher-v-state-alactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack